The art and duty of scandal

If you search the dictionary for the word "scandalize" you basically get this definition:

"Offending the conscience, modesty and moral sentiment of others with words or actions contrary to an ethical or religious norm or otherwise considered reprehensible." It is quite evident that the point at which a person can call himself "scandalized" is subjective.

Speaking of action that makes its effect felt on consciousness and feeling, one can confidently affirm that one is within oneself. It is also true, however, that this is not infrequently, and according to different degrees, conditioned from the outside, by the society of which one is a part.

The scandal has always existed, it is a fuse that sets fire to the dust by exploding something instantaneous. A nice roar in the general falling asleep. Producing something that visibly disturbs is an art, in the true sense of the term.

Who and what disturbs? The consciousness of the individual person and above all that common part at the collective level. Because it is there that art wants to strike, that the artist wants to put his finger: the wound in which he puts it is social.

The history of art is full of examples - we have talked about them in other articles in this column (inherently on topics such as death or sex) - many of them back in time. The art of scandal strikes exactly where the level of collective "moral endurance" collapses, gives way, rants, screams. . . to scandal!

Let's consider some works of the last decades:

"Piss Christ" (1987) by Andres Serrano: a plastic cross inside an aquarium full of blood and urine. From the artist's point of view, it is a cry against the affairs of the Church, against those who profit from the principles of Cristianism. In the eyes of the "average" person of that period (and certainly also of today!), it is a blasphemous and disrespectful work, indecent for personal sensitivity, especially of believers.

There was scandal and there were big headlines. This idea, transformed into art (which for many is not such), made a lot of noise.

What did this work do? She spoke of a huge social, political and religious taboo, even if for a short time (because we live in times of hit-and-run on every front, even of consciousness that quickly removes what disturbs it).

Behind the scandal there is always a substance that few see but those few will be the many of tomorrow. And so, in small steps the mind opens. The work that scandalizes is like lightning that begins to strike, lightning after fulmin, cracks open where before there was a hard ground.

"Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn" (1995) by Ai Weiwei, is a photographic sequence in which he destroys a Chinese artifact over 2000 years old. An act that was branded as scandalous and immoral. Ai Weiwei responded to the criticism with a phrase from Mao Zedong: "The only way to build a new world is to destroy the old one."

In this case, in addition to the destruction of the old to bring the new, I see (and I do not think I am the only one) also an invitation to detach oneself from matter, from objects, even from those of the highest historical and economic value.

Marc Quinn is the artist who gave birth to "Self" (installation/sculpture, difficult to define, from 1991), an all-round self-portrait of his head made with 4.5 liters of his blood taken over the course of 5 years and then frozen. A real blood head preserved below zero. This work explains very well the interest in the body, its mutability, its being subject and object of art and science. Quinn, how he used his own living elements to bring his head to life: "unacceptable!"

Another of his works that caused a sensation was "Alison Lapper pregnant": in this case it was not the material used to scandalize, but the subject of the representation and the explicit world with which he decided to make it with marble.

Alison Lapper, an artist born without legs and arms, is represented pregnant in giant format. The sculpture was strongly criticized for the emphasis on shock that comes from disability explicitly displayed. In that case, however, the work was also widely praised for its progressive social value.

Many minds were ready not to turn their eyes to the taboo of disability. We are in the 21st century; humanity must have made some progress even if it did! Not many, however, Alison's son in fact unfortunately died at the age of 19 (probably from an overdose) after a childhood and adolescence studded with continuous episodes of bullying.

We could review hundreds of potentially scandalous works, but I think the point remains the same. I see a core that pulsates in each of them: it is art that indicates something that goes beyond the point where, as humanity, we find ourselves.

This is not to say that all art should scandalize. Scandal at all costs is the result of the same conditioning that leads people to be scandalized by everything "different" from how they expect it. It means instead that art also has the "duty" to scandalize as a response to a need that is in the first instance in the sensitivity and / or intention of the artist, but that somehow also exists in society, even if not widespread.

The shock that generates a work of art tells us that the time has come for a leap. The fracture of a disruptive gesture is in the air, and the artist grasps it by giving it voice with artistic expression.

The art that causes scandal is the finger that points to the Moon and the public will always split in two: those who widen their eyes trying to see the Moon and those who, instead, twist their mouths looking at the finger.

It's perfect like this: if the whole society waited for the scandal with open arms, what scandal would it be?

Miriam Fusconi

Le immagini di questo articolo (in ordine di citazione nel testo): "Piss Christ" particolare tratto da https://www.artribune.com/ "La caduta di un'urna della dinastia Han" tratta da https://www.artmajeur.com/ "SELF" tratta da http://marcquinn.com/ "Alison Lapper pregnant" tratta da https://www.artribune.com